Case Note & Summary
The case involves a writ appeal filed by the appellants (CRPF authorities) against an order of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dated 15.07.2014 in W.P.No.86607/2012. The Single Judge had quashed the termination order dated 19.09.2011 passed by the 3rd appellant (Director Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF) and directed reinstatement of the respondent (Mallappa Holkundi) with all consequential benefits. The respondent was enlisted as a constable in CRPF on 21.05.2010 and was posted to 116 Battalion on a temporary basis. On 19.09.2011, the 3rd appellant issued a termination notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, stating that the respondent was 'not suitable for retention in the force'. The respondent challenged the termination before the Single Judge, who set aside the order on the ground that it was stigmatic and passed without affording any opportunity of hearing. The Division Bench, in the present appeal, considered the validity of the termination. The court noted that the termination order, though purportedly under Rule 5(1), contained adverse remarks and was stigmatic. The court held that even a temporary employee is entitled to a minimum opportunity of hearing before a stigmatic termination order is passed. The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, thereby upholding the Single Judge's order of reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Employee - Rule 5(1) Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Natural Justice - The respondent, a temporary constable in CRPF, was terminated without any opportunity of hearing. The termination order was stigmatic as it recorded that the respondent was found to be 'not suitable for retention in the force'. The Division Bench held that even a temporary employee is entitled to a minimum opportunity of hearing before a stigmatic termination order is passed. The order was quashed and reinstatement with consequential benefits was upheld. (Paras 2-5)
B) Service Law - Stigmatic Termination - Requirement of Inquiry - Rule 5(1) Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - The termination order, though purportedly under Rule 5(1), contained adverse remarks and was stigmatic. The court held that such an order cannot be passed without conducting a proper inquiry and giving an opportunity to the employee. The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's decision to set aside the termination and order reinstatement. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order dated 19.09.2011 passed under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is valid and sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.07.2014 in WP No.86607/2012, which quashed the termination order dated 19.09.2011 and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Termination of temporary employee
- Stigmatic order
- Opportunity of hearing
- Rule 5(1) Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (02) 93
Writ Appeal No.200289/2015
S. S. Aspalli (ASGI) for appellants, Shivakumar Kalloor for respondent
The Special Director General, Central Zone, Central Reserve Police Force, Salt Lake Sector III, Kolkata, West Bengal State; The Inspector General of Police, B/S CRPF, Patna, Bihar State; The Director Inspector General of Police, Group Centre CRPF, Muzzaffarpur; The Commandant 116 Battalion, CRPF, C/O 56 APO, Muzzaffarpur, Bihar State
Mallappa Holkundi S/o Bhimsha, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Ex.CRPF, 116 Battalion Force No 105052491, R/o Kudaki Village, Post Kajanoo, Tq:Aland, Dist Gulbarga
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ appeal against order of Single Judge quashing termination of a temporary constable in CRPF.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the Single Judge's order dated 15.07.2014 in WP No.86607/2012 and confirm the termination order dated 06.03.2012 (Annexure-D) passed by the 2nd appellant.
Filing Reason
The respondent was terminated from service under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without any opportunity of hearing, and the termination order was stigmatic.
Previous Decisions
The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in WP No.86607/2012 dated 15.07.2014 quashed the termination order dated 19.09.2011 and ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
Issues
Whether the termination order dated 19.09.2011 passed under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without affording an opportunity of hearing, is valid and sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the termination was valid under Rule 5(1) as the respondent was a temporary employee and no opportunity of hearing was required.
Respondent argued that the termination order was stigmatic and passed without any inquiry or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
Even a temporary employee is entitled to a minimum opportunity of hearing before a stigmatic termination order is passed. A termination order under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which contains adverse remarks and is stigmatic, cannot be passed without conducting a proper inquiry and giving an opportunity to the employee.
Judgment Excerpts
It was the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge that on 21.05.2010 the petitioner/present respondent was enlisted for the post of constable in CRPF, at Group Centre, Bengaluru and was allotted 116 Battalion on Temporary basis and he was discharging his duties with honesty and integrity without blemish.
The facts stood thus, 3rd respondent/present appellant No.3 issued termination notice dated 19.09.2011 (Annuxure-A) under the provisions of Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 (for short ‘the Rules’) by the Commandant of the Office of Director and Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, CRPF, Muzzaffarpur, Bihar on the premise that the respondent was found to be 'not suitable for retention in the force'.
Procedural History
The respondent filed WP No.86607/2012 before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the termination order dated 19.09.2011. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 15.07.2014, quashing the termination and ordering reinstatement. The appellants filed the present writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act against that order. The Division Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it on 28.02.2019.
Acts & Sections
- Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965: Rule 5(1)
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
